Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Roets v School Governing Body: Du Preez Van Wyk Primary School and Others (5937/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 640 (21 June 2024)
The High Court held the school defendants 100% liable after a parent fell into an obscured hole on school premises; the disclaimer defence failed as hearsay.
Phungula v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (12245/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1200 (21 September 2023)
The High Court held PRASA wholly liable after the plaintiff was pushed out of an open train door while the train was moving near Duncanville station.
Viljoen and Another v Cornelius and Others (48446/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1185 (27 October 2016)
The court found that the defendants owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care in the context of a dangerous obstacle course. The evidence established that the defendants failed to provide adequate instructions, did not ensure the presence of properly trained marshals, and did not supply necessary safety equipment such as harnesses for the Foefie slide. The disclaimer boards and indemnity forms were not brought to the plaintiff's attention, and she did not voluntarily assume the risk. The defendants' reliance on disclaimer notices was rejected due to lack of visibility and proper communication.…
Source excerpt
Avonmore Supermarket CC v Venter (211/13) [2014] ZASCA 42; 2014 (5) SA 399 (SCA) (31 March 2014)
The appellant failed to establish the existence of a valid contract with the independent cleaning contractor, DBU, and thus could not rely on that defence. The evidence showed that the appellant's cleaning operation created a foreseeable risk to customers, and the warning sign was not placed close enough to the hazard. The cleaning was performed during a busy period, and the cleaner left a damp floor without adequate warning. The appellant did not take reasonable steps to prevent harm, such as ensuring the area was dry before allowing customers access or placing warning signs at the correct l…
Source excerpt
Hanson v Liberty Group Ltd and Others (2009/4633) [2011] ZAGPJHC 195 (9 September 2011)
The High Court held that a mall parking disclaimer did not bind a passenger because it was directed at parkers and vehicle owners, not her.
Both v Post Office Café Bazaar CC (39502/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 90 (11 November 2009)
The court found that the plaintiff tripped and fell due to an obstacle on the supermarket floor, which should not have been present. The evidence, including the plaintiff's and her witness's testimony, supported the existence of a protruding tile or similar obstruction. The defendant failed to preserve crucial CCTV evidence and did not provide a credible alternative explanation for the accident. Applying the test in Kruger v Coetzee, the defendant, as a reasonable occupier, should have foreseen the risk of harm from obstacles on the floor and taken steps to prevent such occurrences. The defen…
Source excerpt
Explore more
